A special thank you to Dick for taking the time to respond on this subject... I appreciate it...

Lots of info there to digest

Quote :

frank1 wrote : You have defined a herd with no hunting, no poaching and no roadkills. Based on those criteria  ,a balanced  buck age structure would be natural and would benefit the herd.

Again, thank you for admitting that AR's are benefiting the herd by allowing the male age sructure to improve.  Not natural by any means but more natural than what it was.

Quote :

Dr Trout wrote : A special thank you to Dick for taking the time to respond on this subject... I appreciate it... Lots of info there to digest

I agree!!!

As always, well thought out and detailed.  A big thank you as your free time is valuable but you still find the time to keep educating all of us.

So we agree a balanced age structure would benefit the herd.  Do you support any means to improve what our age structure was just before AR's?

Some options would be:

Do nothing
Shorten the season
Allocate buck tags
Weapon restrictions
Spread restrictions
Our current point restriction

Frank1 so you perfer shooting spikes and 4 pointers then??  

I guess frank did not read RSB's post since he is still saying ---- ""since ARs did nothing to improve breeding rates, or shorten the breeding season."" ----

Because.... for the same reasons RSB stated....

You missed the part about studying the road kills... that problem is state wide and shows (as he said) the figures are not the same now as they used to be...

If the PGC is not checking anywhere near the same number of dead does the figure will not be the same...

a bettter means may be needed to get better results...

studying results from 1,000 and the results from 100 are not going to show the same results...

You believe who ever you want  ...  BUT don't expect me to follow...the antis have been trying that for 8 years now..    

I'll go with the person that states figures that match what I see with my eyes and hear from people in my area...... not some one typing on a website...

and in this area and up in Elk we are seeing lots of does with multiple fawns and have for the past three years...

Even posted a photo of a Mother on the board today and I saw her at 4:00pm...and have two does in the yard with twins !!!!  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-12 20:40:47 --

Please do not make open-ended remarks like this...

Quote :

RSB's observations are not reflexed in the harvest data for 2 G

Be specific in your remarks.. RSB said alot in that post and others he has made...

Just what are you talking about...

BTW... your ISP looks awful familar now that I check it out

 

ALSO... remarks like this that questions a member's honesty/accuracy ---- WILL NOT BE TOLERATED...

Quote :

which raises serious questions about the accuracy of his data.

ZERO TOLERANCE ON THAT ONE....  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-12 21:38:28 --

   
 
 

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-12 22:01:43 --

i thought something seemed framilar.  

Quote :

While the shift in sample size checked may have effected the statewide breeding rate, would you agree it would have no effect on the breeding rates within any given WMU?

The sample size within a unit probably doesn’t change the actual breeding rate with the unit but it most certainly can have an effect on the reliability of the results when your sample size becomes to small to have reliable data. As an example when you only have one or two deer to sample you simply don’t have enough data to have idea how accurate it is. To be reliable we really should have at least 100 samples in each unit. We don’t have that in some units. I’ll cover that a little later when I address another of your comments. That lack of sample size is also one of the reasons it would not make sense for us to go to smaller management units. We can just barely get enough data to have confidence in the data for the larger units and simply could not scientifically manage smaller units in mnay cases.

Quote :

Would you also agree that the WMU's with the most herd reduction should have shown the biggest increase in breeding rates?

Nope not at all would I agree with that statement. The change in the breeding rate has more to do with keeping more adult bucks in the total deer population. In many areas we really didn’t reduce the deer population though we did harvest more does and protect more bucks. In some management units the total harvest has actually decreased since we began the concurrent seasons even though we harvested a few additional antler less deer. I can show you that the total deer harvests in both units 2F and 2G have been lower the past twenty years yet the deer herd was pretty steadily declining except for the periods when we had a serious of mild winters with good mast crop conditions.

The breeding rates in the areas with the most total herd reduction probably haven’t changed as much as they have in the units where the total population has experienced the least change though the buck/doe ratio improved. In the units where we had been harvesting unlimited antler less deer prior to the concurrent season and antler restrictions it is not likely that the breeding rates improved as much as many other areas because those areas already had the highest breeding rates before even though those are the areas where the antler less harvests have increased the most in recent years.

Quote :

i did not admit ARs were benefiting the herd. There is nothing natural about the way we are selecting the bucks that are allowed to live one additional year,so it is more likely that ARs are hurting the herd rather than helping it.

The present antler restrictions certainly are not having any adverse affects on the genetics of our deer herd. According to the majority of the leading deer research experts that would be virtually impossible in a free ranging deer herd.

Since all of our adult bucks get a chance to breed before the major deer hunting season starts just about every adult buck out there does do some breeding. We need them all to do some breeding to get the maximum number of the cycling does bred during their first estrus cycle.  Besides we have always had antler restrictions in Pennsylvania all we did recently was increase the restriction from a short antler spike to three or four on a side. If it were possible to harm the genetics by keeping the worst bucks the damage was done a long time ago with about fifty years of protecting the 1 ½ year old spikes that were less than three-inch.

Quote :

Personally I see no need to improve the age structure since ARs did nothing to improve breeding rates, or shorten the breeding season. If you can document that improving the age structure will provide a positive effect, then som of the options you propose may be applicable.

We most certainly have documented improvements in both the breeding rates and breeding time periods. Even though the statewide data has not shown that trend most of the individual units have shown improvement in both the breeding rates and times. I pointed that out last night. Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean they aren’t still the facts.

Quote :

Yes I read RSB's post, but his data does not agree with the data provided by our professional PGC biologists and it doesn't agree with what Dr. Rosenberry has said about breeding rates or the length of the breeding. Therefore I will base my position on the data provided by the PGC and let others reach their own conclusions about RSB's data.

I really don’t think you fully understand just what the general comments within those statewide reports really say and even more importantly what they don’t say.

There is a lot that they don’t say that is more important then what they do say. I doubt that you have talked one on one with the guys heading the research of the Deer Management Section. You really should talk to them some time and see what they have to say about your opinions. I have talked to them and have a pretty good handle on what the deer management research is revealing. In fact over the years I have been collecting a pretty fair amount of the data they have used in their management direction.

Quote :

But here is something to think about. If ARs and HR produced such dramatic results in RSB's district can you explain why there hasn't been similar significant improvements in other WMUs.

I believe that when the time is right to present the data for the individual units you will see that the data is improving in most units though perhaps not as much as some of the units where both the habitat and buck/doe ratio were so horribly out of balance as occurred in some of the northern units.

Quote :

Contrary to RSB's claims the number of roadkills checked in 5C and 2B is still much higher than in 2G or 2 F ,so the decreased number of roadkills checked does not account for the decrease in the statewide breeding rates. Furthermore, if RSB's data shows 100% adult doe breeding rates, why doesn't the data from the rest of the 2G reflex a similar improvement.

Nope you are wrong.

From 1997-2001 the entire southwest region of the state accounted for 16.5 % of the total statewide sample with about 250 deer being sampled per year. During that same period the north central region was sampling about 260 deer or 17.1 % of the statewide total. The northeast region was about 270 deer or 17.6 % of the statewide sample. That meant that each area of the state had about equal representation of the deer being examined.

By 2003 the entire southwest region was down to where they only sampled 28 deer or 4.5% of the statewide sample. The north central remained pretty consistent with 15.7% of the statewide sample but the northeast region jumped way up to 28.6% of the statewide sample.

That is significant because the north central and northeast have traditionally had some of the lowest breeding rates and reproductive rates in the state yet they suddenly became the leading areas of the state for deer reproductive data. That creates a bias in the statewide data you are looking at.

I can tell you that things are improving in unit 2G though the data for 2G as a whole might not be as high as in my district. My district is made up more of unit 2F then 2G. What part of 2G I do have is generally better habitat then much of the area in Cameron, Clinton and even parts of the eastern Elk County district.

Quote :

The data I provide is not my data. It is data provided by the PGC and their expects. RSB's data conflicts with the PGC data, so I'll stick with the data provided by the experts. Furthermore, RSB's observations are not reflexed in the harvest data for 2 G ,which raises serious questions about the accuracy of his data.

My data does not conflict with the PGC data. In fact nearly all of the data I use comes right from the PGC data files. About the only exception to that would be the data from the Elk County volunteer survey routes. I just have access to a more data then gets released to the public in the general news releases or the public web site. I can go right to the Game Commission main frame or the intranet agency web site and access a lot of data that isn’t available to people outside the agency. That is why we have computers that link to the Harrisburg system. There are many things I can’t access but I can certainly access a lot more then people that don’t work for the agency.

I don’t have any idea what you mean when you infer that my data doesn’t reflect (I think that is what you meant to type) the 2G harvest data. Can you be more precise in what you are referring too.

Dick Bodenhorn    

I sure hope the local politicians are enjoying this thread as much as the memebrs here...

I started it to inform the membership of my meeting with Senator Scarnati's office about the things the USP and Jim Sliminsky had been telling his office about hunters and the PGC deer program...

Frank1 (real name  = John T.)  has shown very well why I THINK the USP is regarded as not representative of the majority of hunters.

Just look how many have risen to counter what he has written.

And as expected from many at the USP... when confronted with the evidence about the  good of the current deer program continues to just defy the facts and continue with denial..

Anyone can read this post and see how many of his claims have been countered and shown to be NOT correct...  how many times he has been asked to be more specific and just changes the subject... and the part that is AMAZING to me is he quotes PGC figures when his organization as a whole does NOT believe the figures the PGC puts out and wishes to sue them...


ENJOY ......  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-13 07:32:33 --

Quote :

If adult breeding rates increased by just 10% in 2G and more fawns were being bred and recruitment increased due to improved habitat, then the number of fawns recruited should have increased by at least 15-20%. Thefore ,in order to keep the herd stable ,harvests should have increased by 15-20%,but they haven't,so the herd should be increasing. But the experts at the PGC say the herd is stable and that is why I said your breeding rate data isn't reflected in the harvest data.

This one is EASY.... and I don't need experts...

the harvest figures HAVE reflected that.....

1....check out the doe tag allocations... they were cut.. or did you not know that... fewer tags mean fewer harvests usually... it does not show how many deer there are...but if harvest does not drop there must be more deer out there...


then consider that last year had the biggest decline in 1st day harvests in history....


BUT IN SPITE OF THAT.. let's see what DID happen in 2G -----


since the first 2 years of HR/AR 2G's harvest have been as follows...

2005..11,200
2006..11,800  
2007..11,700

NOTICE ---- that is INCREASING.....but also pretty stable..

then consider the terrible 2007 1st day and the total went to 11,700




NO OTHER WMU in the STATE came that close to their 2006 harvest figures... most were off by nearly a thousand..

so either the weather was GREAT in 2G (which we all know it was not) or the herd is increasing and those figures PROVE THAT....


So I think the harvest figures do show the herd is increasing in 2G...
 
and folks that LIVE in that area that I talk to agree...
they tell me they are seeing more deer and better re-generation..


and I can not see how ANYONE could think otherwise in light of the harvest figures FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS..  

or are you now going to go to the USP's position that the harvest figures are not accurate ???????



all proof, to most of us deer hunters, that the program IS WORKING... and we are willing to continue to have patience and support the PGC and their deer program.....

just as I explained to Senator Scarnati and wanted him to pass on to others in congress.....  

--Last edited by Dr Trout on 2008-06-13 07:35:44 --

Just wanted to thank Mr. Bodenhorn for the great post!